About your Search

20121115
20121115
STATION
CNBC 3
MSNBC 3
MSNBCW 3
CSPAN 2
CNN 1
CNNW 1
CSPAN2 1
FBC 1
LANGUAGE
English 25
Search Results 0 to 24 of about 25 (some duplicates have been removed)
, larry, that was at 6600 in march. 2009 but doubled to 13,000 under the obama administration? >> well, it was until he got re-elected. >> yeah. >> people think he's turning against them. >> i remember hearing the same argument from you in march of 2009 when the stock market was at its low, and you said that the obama administration policies were going to kill the stock market. and instead, it doubled. so people invested and made a ton of money. the reality, larry, is that elections have consequences. the election is over. the republicans lost. it's time to get over it and move on. that means we have to come together and create some sort of compromise. but it doesn't mean the republicans get their way and they don't move it all to the left. there has to be some movement to the center on both sides. the president's already indicated that in terms of spending cuts, which he said repeatedly. and what the democrats -- >> i never heard spending cuts. i never heard anything about spending cuts. he never heard -- >> he may not have said it today but there were references. >> like i said, you
. can we expect the same from the obama administration? >> will be important to watch. will. administration in 2008, you could handle the situation however you see fit and the international community weighed in for a cease-fire. we haven't had a lot of statements out of washington yet. we had statements from the british government. very interesting to see statements that obama makes on this. dagen: any idea how long this lasts? even though there might not be a supply disruption related to this, could you see it show up in the price of oil. >> with i rise 7%. and no one knows how this plays out. and in 2006, the hezbollah conflict again, relatively limited conflict and duration but people were concerned that it would spread. i don't think this one's friends. we have two major military campaigns in the region. dagen: biggest worry is it still in iraq? >> we have to watch that throughout this year. and it ends the nuclear threat. dagen: that is what the obama administration wants. >> we have a decision point in 2013. dagen: we have another year. thanks for taking the time. anyt
the obama administration spend yuyour tax money not just on health services, but p.r. to convince that you should you love obamacare? a house committee wants to know. they subpoenaed hhs committee chair kathleen sebelius. we have a panel here to discuss it. rick, what does the hill want? >> the hill wants to know what kathleen sebelius was spenning mono, and whether there was money proanted for hhs publicity, directed to improve the standing of the obama health care law. if it was spent on those purposes, it wasn't really doing its job. the obamacare is not nearly as possible as the administration wanted. i would also say, look, it is the law of land. as a political matter, this is a very legitimate inquiry, but have you more and more republicans saying, it's time to move on. i don't see this as a fruitful area to go through the things that happened in the last term. it is the law of the land. there is no point it try to repeal it as this jumpghture, right now. i don't know whati are going to accomplish. >> greta: apparently, gawp, correct me if i am wrong, one of the programs spent $20 mi
? >> the israelis recognize theyor their own. i think they have little confidence in the obama administration to stand by them. they are pursuing their opponents. they have just eliminated an important one in hamas and hamas has been a terrible thorn in their side, has been threatening them, been conducting operations against them and this is a strong message to hamas that, you know, we are at you. you know, we will escalate this. i think -- they recognize this is the only message that hamas will understand. >> sean: if we can, tony, i want to rerack what we just played here. they videotaped this attack on jabari. you know, you can see the yellow circlesarn the car, that's the car he is in. and if i am an extremist and watching this, i am thinking, you know, those are israelis, they are pretty tough with their defense. >> i gotta tell you, it's a good shot. that's when we should be doing with precision. i am not a big fan of the drone program because i want to have live prisoners, but that's a good shot-- >>> great shot. >> this is a message to all of us, we will wait, we will be patient and
and the senate want to know what went wrong, what members of the obama administration knew, what they knew it and why tke th-pbt do more to prevent the attack or respond in time. chief intelligent correspondent catherine herridge is live on capital hill with all of this. catherine the latest. let's start with the testimony of general petraeus and the testimony we just heard about that secretary clinton will attend. >> well, thank you, jenna and good morning. two important developments here on capitol hill. fox' confirmation this morning that the former cia director david petraeus will testify before the house and senate intelligence committees. these will be closed or classified sessions early friday morning, and also confirmation that secretary of state hillary clinton will testify here on the hill and give the read out, or the results of their internal review at the state department about the benghazi attack, and that announcement was made at the house foreign affairs committee a short time ago. >> further i would like to note that secretary clinton has committed to testifying before our
he's convinced that rice is part of an obama administration cover-up over the attack on the u.s. consulate in benghazi. mccain articulated his theory this morning, pledging to do everything he can to stop rice's nomination from moving forward. >> susan rice should have been known better, and if she didn't know better, she's not qualified. she would have known better. i will do everything in my power to block her from being the united states secretary of state. she has proven that she either doesn't understand or she is not willing to accept evidence on its face. >> and of course, mccain has enlisted reinforcements. here's comes senator lindsey graham of south carolina who is also questioning rice's credibility. >> i don't trust. the reason i don't trust her, because i think she knew better, and if she doesn't know better, she shouldn't be the voice of america. >> this afternoon, the president smack them both down. >> when they go after the u.n. ambassador, apparently because they think she's an easy target, then they've got a problem with me. >> today's repudiation of mccain's
to exam why security arrangements were so inadequate and why the obama administration offered to shift public response. here's what president obama had to say. this is his press conference in the white house. >> let me say specifically about susan rice, she has done exemplary work. she has represented the united states and our interest in the united nations with skill and professionalism and toughness and grace. as i have said before, she made an appearance at the request of the white house in which she gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her. senator mccain and senator graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me. and i'm happy to have that discussion with them. but for them to go after the u.n. ambassador who had nothing to do with benghazi and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received and besmirch her reputation is outrageous. host: president obama at a press conference. yesterday the ambassador he was talking about is susan rice, ambassador to the u.n. here's an image of her in the "was
. stop fighting these wars. our national debt through the bush and obama administrations, our debt went up over $4 trillion just because of these wars that are totally senseless. the loss of life. now there are talking about, what are we going to go in -- we are so much involved with libya. look at what is happening with libya. it want to go to war against iran. i would say, that is the place to have big cuts. we all ought to agree on doing that. i want to raise -- i would not raise taxes. we need to cut spending. if you raise taxes, you're going to have a weaker economy. some of the tax cuts, even for the middle-class occurred for the bush administration. you do not want to raise taxes on the middle class. it will not be enough money. i think you have touched on something. i think we need to deal with the military. we cannot do that unless we change the foreign policy. we are not the world policeman getting involved with all of these countries. i think the american people ought to agree on that issue more readily than anything else. i do not see why we should talk about cutting health
as one of the most popular members of the obama administration. clinton talks about how she's been in the political spotlight for 20 years. and she wants her life back. fair enough. says she wants to sleep, relax. okay. but what about after that? while hillary clinton has repeatedly said she won't run for president again, this is the same woman who says politics is in her dna. she is after all a clinton. and with a resume that includes secretary of state, senator, first lady, well, a democratic nomination is probably hers for the taking if she wants it. vice president joe biden's keeping the door open to a possible 2016 presidential run although he recently acknowledged it might depend on the economy. a memo to the vice president might also depend on hillary clinton. here's the question, is hillary clinton the answer? go to cnn.com/caffertyfile or go to our post on "the situation room" facebook page. never too early to start speculation. >> special for those of us who are political news junkies. i've been saying for a while no inside information. i suspect she still has that passio
into the libya raid and the obama administration's response to it. they also said they would try to block any attempt to nominate susan rice as the next secretary of state, describing her as unqualified for the job after she originally characterized the terror attack as a protest gone wrong. she went on the sunday shows including "meet the press" a couple days after the attack and said that. president obama in his news conference yesterday fired back at senators mccain and graham. >> let me say specifically about susan rice, she has done exemplary work. she has represented the united states and our interests in the united nations with skill and professionalism and toughness and grace. if senator mccain and senator graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me. and i'm happy to have that discussion with them. but for them to go after the u.n. ambassador who had nothing to do with benghazi and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received and to besmirch her reputation is outrageous. >> those republican senators were quick to respond to the
of the differences between the bush administration and the obama administration is that we believed, and a big many of us continue to believe, that this is a long war not against al qaeda. al qaeda is one manifestation but against a particular ideology. so our national security goals were, one, keep america safe, too, help promote freedom around the world. and those two things are linked because we believe they were linked. free countries are less likely to make were on their neighbors. so i think that to me the grand strategic goal of public diplomacy is the same as the grand strategic goal of foreign policy and national security policy, which is to achieve those two goals. and i think you never ever want to forget that those are the goals that need to be achieved. and public diplomacy's role in that i think does, in fact, revolve around the ideological part. and it is, not to quote myself, i hate to do that, but i can't say it any better. [laughter] >> a great man once said. >> the aim must be to ensure that negative sentiments and day-to-day grievances toward the united states and its allies did
years as it relates to the obama administration is not positive for stocks. they don't want to say it. they don't want to write it. but you can find it everywhere. the evidence is mounting all over the street that the last two weeks there is a massive outside allocation shift as a result of it. this is what i want to say. i find it very disturbing when people walk into this building, come on air, talk about the portfolios. if you're a loan only manager you have to try to find stocks that are working but, remember, there's nothing wrong with holding cash or saying it like you think it is. i want to point something out here. this is the wellington letter. he writes he's been doing this for 35 years. this is what he said in the edition that came out yesterday. bat ten down the hatches. protect your assets, your business, your job. this is no longer a theoretical exercise. i want to tell you, carl, i find it disgusting that a lot of people are saying that to their clients and they're saying that across the board but they're not putting it in print. if you're saying something like that, ha
it can be done. >> president obama will begin formal budget talks with house and senate leaders tomorrow. he met with several ceos at the white house yesterday. administration officials say he told them any deficit deal must be balanced with higher taxes for the wealthy as well as retitlement reform. >>> now let's talk with senior u.s. economist at barclays capital here in london. because you wanted to tell us just what they're going to do to resolve the fiscal cliff. maybe you have some answer that seems to have eluded everyone else. >> our view is probably similar to everyone else's in that there's strongen send difference to come to an agreement. the timing is the issue and the question is do we go over the cliff first before we come back. so as the president said yesterday, he's willing to look at options, but he's pretty skre skeptical that we can get the number that is he wants without a tax increase. so the outcome of the election does make it more likely that we test the cliff that we go over, tax rates go higher and we hope that incentivizes an outcome. >> this is one scenario t
Search Results 0 to 24 of about 25 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)